Why did critics describe Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy as suitable for pigs?

Critics characterized Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism as a philosophy "fit for pigs" because he refused to distinguish between the quality of different pleasures. Bentham argued that if the quantity of pleasure is equal, then a simple game like "pushpin" is as valuable as the appreciation of poetry.12

By treating all pleasures as equal in value, Bentham’s critics believed he reduced human existence to a base level of sensory gratification, ignoring the higher intellectual or moral pursuits typically valued by refined society. However, this characterization is considered only partially accurate; Bentham could have argued that intellectual pursuits like poetry provide a greater quantity of pleasure over time because they do not lead to the same boredom or fatigue associated with simple games. Ultimately, Bentham’s position reflected his commitment to an objective, quantitative approach to ethics, prioritizing the reform of conventional moral views over conforming to them.12